State's Indigenous divide highlighted in response to referendum

According to Peter Rowe, director of the First Tasmanians Aboriginal Corporation, the divide between support for the 'Yes' and 'No' Voice campaigns reflected the different factions in rough-and-tumble Tasmanian Aboriginal politics.

It is the very vocal leadership of the [Tasmanian Aboriginal Corporation] and related groups that are involved in the No campaign, he said.

The fact that the TAC is at "loggerheads" with many other Tasmanian Aboriginal groups over other issues may have helped expand the fissures over the Voice, Mr Rowe said.

Heading up the No vote with the TAC was long-time indigenous activist Michael Mansell, who said that a constitutional change was no guarantee of Indigenous rights into the future, progress on Closing the Gap or an end to racism.

"In terms of empowering Aboriginal people, this is one of the weakest proposals you could come up with," Mr Mansell said.

"The 'Yes' campaign says because the Voice will be put in the Constitution, it will make the [Voice] body permanent. That is just not true ... because if the referendum is successful, and it says there shall be a Voice to Parliament, whether there is a Voice to Parliament is entirely up to the Parliament, not the Constitution," he said.

He feared that, even with a constitutional change, a future government could simply abolish the Voice in a similar way to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Commission nearly two decades ago.

He also said there was also scant evidence that the Voice - a proposed body that would advise parliament on Indigenous affairs - would improve Aboriginal Australians' lives.

"They say this could turn around the nation of Australia, that it will diminish racism. How can an advisory body bring that about, if 10 Aboriginals inside the federal parliament can't, and if a Prime Minister who is onside with Aboriginal people can't?"

Mr Mansell said the government should forget a constitutional amendment and instead legislate six new seats in the Senate reserved for Indigenous Australians.

On the other side of the Voice debate in Tasmania were groups like Mr Rowe's First Tasmanians Aboriginal Corporation.

He said he believed the vast majority of Indigenous Tasmanians supported the Yes vote, and estimated that the TAC and Mr Mansell represented roughly 16 per cent of Indigenous Tasmanians.

A Voice would set a solid base to pursue Indigenous Australians further goals, which could ultimately consider proposals like the one championed by Mr Mansell, Mr Rowe said.

The Voice is a formal process to provide a weighty argument in favour of the Treaty and everything else that might follow once the Voice is implemented, he said.

He also said he thought that some of the TAC's support for the No campaign was from people that supported the Yes vote, but thought a treaty should come first.

Mr Rowe noted Mr Mansell's views that Senate seats should be reserved for Aboriginals, and pointed out Mr Mansell's 2015 proposal - that three seats in state parliament be reserved for indigenous Tasmanians - as an example of how pursuing more realistic goals had in the past yielded results.

"We've got to be able to achieve what we can now, and at the same time, keep our ideals and goals for the future," Mr Rowe said.

Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can continue to access our trusted content: